Plaintiffs submit several declarations nominally attributed to former employees and
contractors of Bank of America accusing the bank of a wide variety of intentional misconduct. It
is unclear what purpose Plaintiffs intend these declarations to serve other than being prejudicial
and inflammatory, since they would do absolutely nothing to demonstrate that this case warrants
class certification even if they were credible—and they are not credible.
That is because none of the declarants claim, nor are they in a position to claim, personal
involvement with every class member’s loan, nor even a significant proportion of them. Any
claims they make about how they mistreated loans they handled, even if credited, cannot be used
to support conclusions about other loans. Thus, Plaintiffs’ insinuation that Bank of America
should be presumed to have subjected the entire class to a particular treatment just because a
former employee (falsely) claims to have treated some borrowers in that fashion is directly
analogous to the theory rejected by numerous courts in the wake of Wal-Mart that the way one
employee exercises his or her discretion can be extrapolated to support conclusions about the
whole class.
